Jeff Sessions: Slavery, not states rights or economic issues, caused the Civil War

[homersapien 11,366]

4 hours ago, maxwere said:

So this justifies overstepping the 10th amendment?

also, slavery was an institution globally (still is in fact) for centuries.  Does that qualify it as a humanitarian crisis?

Are you implying that should disqualify it as a humanitarian crisis?

 

[maxwere 82]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Are you implying that should disqualify it as a humanitarian crisis?

 

I qualify it as a deep state of mans depravity.  A crisis only in the long term sense.  The state (man) is incapable to correct by is own fiat emergency policy.  That is to say depravity is not merely an issue of behavior.  It is the heart issue.  Guns and swords don’t reform hearts, they can only hope to restrain evil.  Hence the cliche, you can’t legislate morality.

You ok with Jeff Sessions legislating morality?

[homersapien 11,366]

3 hours ago, maxwere said:

I qualify it as a deep state of mans depravity.  A crisis only in the long term sense.  The state (man) is incapable to correct by is own fiat emergency policy.  That is to say depravity is not merely an issue of behavior.  It is the heart issue.  Guns and swords don’t reform hearts, they can only hope to restrain evil.  Hence the cliche, you can’t legislate morality.

You ok with Jeff Sessions legislating morality?

I doubt slaves would see it that way.

I am not OK with Jeff Sessions legislating anything.

[maxwere 82]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

I doubt slaves would see it that way.

I am not OK with Jeff Sessions legislating anything.

The majority of “slaves” are completely unaware of their predicament.  

[homersapien 11,366]

5 hours ago, maxwere said:

The majority of “slaves” are completely unaware of their predicament.  

Yes, Obi-wan.

But I doubt that's true for the majority of slaves in the South at the time.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

14 hours ago, maxwere said:

The majority of “slaves” are completely unaware of their predicament.  

Why put slaves in quotes?

[maxwere 82]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Why put slaves in quotes?

Multi-entendre... Cite the following:

Romans 6

entitlement programs

US national debt

US median household debt

us median net worth

the human trafficking industry

...Etc

when the state gets involved you trade one form of slavery for another.  Sometimes better, sometimes not.

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,366]

5 hours ago, maxwere said:

Multi-entendre... Cite the following:

Romans 6

entitlement programs

US national debt

US median household debt

us median net worth

the human trafficking industry

...Etc

when the state gets involved you trade one form of slavery for another.  Sometimes better, sometimes not.

 

 

 

Sounds to me like you are trying to equate literal chattel slavery to metaphorical slavery.

There's a difference.

[LakeBum 187]

I believe that Secession by the Southern states and the Northern states' objection to that move was the real cause of the Civil War.  I believe Sessions is talking about why the Southern states felt compelled to leave the Union.  

 

[autigeremt 6,599]

Slavery= economics back in 1860. The issue of slavery itself wasn't as big an issue to the plantation owners as losing their ability to continue to make money off of their manual labor. 

 

Either way you look at it slavery was (and still is for some parts of the world) an accepted practice for economic gain. It's a sad reality of human history. Evil in my eyes.

[maxwere 82]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

Sounds to me like you are trying to equate literal chattel slavery to metaphorical slavery.

There's a difference.

I'm not equating anything.  In the modern human trafficking issue, sex slavery is far worse than any of the others.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Dispelling myths.

http://www.rulen.com/myths/

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

18 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Dispelling myths.

http://www.rulen.com/myths/

Not always doing a very good job of it.

Part of the problem is how they word the "myths" they are dispelling.  I don't have the time deal with all of them (some are outright false, some omit important info, others exaggerate, others are just unimportant).  But let's deal with the main doozy:

"The War of 1861 - 1865 was fought over slavery."

This is disingenuous and clever wording.  Because wars can be fought for a lot of reasons and it depends on whose perspective you're looking at.  So sure, you can say that the North fought it over money.  But he lies when he says "The South fought the War to repel Northern aggression and invasion."  Because first of all, the North didn't invade the South.  The South initiated armed hostilities in attacking Fort Sumter, a fort built by and owned by the United States.  But more importantly, the South went to war for one 700 lb. gorilla in the room reason:  to preserve the institution of slavery.  To say otherwise is to willfully deny the words of the Southern states themselves as their reasons for seceding.  So the entire path to war was precipitated by the South seceding to preserve slavery and the war was begun by the South attacking a US military installation to further their secessionist aims.

So if you want to nitpick about each sides primary motivations for going to war, you can say that the North did not fight the war to free slaves (at least at first).  But that does not absolve the South.  The South seceded to preserve slavery and because they objected to the efforts to have the US restrict slavery in future territories.  They initiated hostilities over this decision to secede, not to "repel Northern aggression or invasion."  They chose this path.  They were the ones who caused the war to happen.  The rest is revisionist bull****.

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,366]

22 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Dispelling myths.

http://www.rulen.com/myths/

 

Good grief.  

[TitanTiger 20,472]

• Myth:  The Civil War wasn't about slavery.

  The most widespread myth is also the most basic. Across America, 60 percent to 75 percent of high-school history teachers believe and teach that the South seceded for state's rights, said Jim Loewen, author of "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong" (Touchstone, 1996) and co-editor of "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The 'Great Truth' about the 'Lost Cause'" (University Press of Mississippi, 2010).

  "It's complete B.S.," Loewen told LiveScience. "And by B.S., I mean 'bad scholarship.'"

  In fact, Loewen said, the original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.

  In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

  The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society.

  "People think that somehow it demonizes their ancestors," to have fought for slavery, Deaton told LiveScience. But the people fighting at the time were very much aware of what was at stake, Deaton said.

  "[Defining the war] is our problem," he said. "I don't think it was theirs."

  https://www.livescience.com/18863-civil-war-myths.html

 

 

 

 

Au

[maxwere 82]

In a completely unrelated move, (our new confederate history professor) Sessions attacks California for "extremist", "secessionist" policy.  He will use the full force of the federal government to right the evils of California immigration policy.  See any familiarity in tact to a particular 19th C GOP president?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/there-is-no-secession-sessions-blasts-california-for-sanctuary-policies-says-he-will-use-his-power-to-stop-them/2018/03/07/7aee6890-2219-11e8-86f6-54bfff693d2b_story.html